Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[metis]

When it comes to the creator, then we can not expect the unexpected. This is actually very "expected"



The evidence for intelligent design/creation do exist and can also be overwhelming but it depends on how you individually want to see it. Regardless of the evidence, it doesn't create a fact on its own, in isolation from you. Maybe a clue. You look at it, then you create your own relative fact, however you want it to be. Nothing is absolute. The absolute fact only exists beyond the realm of our desires and interpretations in a zone that could be beyond our reach.



I am not aware whether a survey was conducted to specifically verify cosmologists beliefs but regardless, the reference in this case is their knowledge independent from their beliefs. Why cosmologists or people in general, believe in one way or another, this is a separate subject. Your own belief shouldn't be dependent on other peoples beliefs. They made their choice, you do yours. Utilize the knowledge and do your judgment.

In response to the part of your post I underlined, I have, but I thought you'd maybe be interested in those who specialize in BB cosmology in terms of what they're consensus is.

Secondly, there simply is no evidence for "intelligent design", nor is it even a scientific hypothesis since it lacks the criteria necessary to be considered as such.

BTW, you might tone down the condescension a bit as it's a bit offensive. My background is science (retired anthropologist), and I also taught theology for many years, so I've used "my knowledge and my judgement" on this matter.

Take care.

 

[NoorNoor]

This is just pure nonsense. It is almost inanely easy to see why this supposed calculation of yours is meaningless:

Let's say we have a pebble in a stream. For the sake the simplicity, we will say this pebble contains 100 atoms (this would actually make the pebble significantly smaller than a grain of sand, but we're aiming for simplicity for this analogy). In order to form this pebble, therefore, 100 atoms needs to be placed in a very specific configuration. The chance of the first atom being placed in the first specific location is obvious 1/100. The chance of the next atom being place in the next specific location is 1/99. Therefore, the odds of successfully placing the first two atoms in their specific locations is 1/9900. The chance of getting all 100 atoms in all specific locations is 1/1x10^157. So, this pebble, despite being so incredibly simple, cannot possibly exist, right? .

This is actually nonsense. The atoms group to make up a single molecule. The molecules are bonded together through covalent bonding in a stable balance of attractive and repulsive forces. Yet, I am not saying this is simple but on the contrary, a complex example of how invisible forces remarkably control the physical elements, regardless of the small scale of a molecule.

Except "chance" didn't shape the pebble, nor lead to its formation. Pebbles are shaped by physical forces. They are the result of physical laws acting upon matter, not "randomness". Stop thinking about life as the purpose of the Universe, and instead merely start of the Universe as the home of life. Life developed because of specific conditions, specific conditions didn't exist because they needed to produce life. You have no basis on which to make any of the claims that you do above - particularly the ones about how this Universe could have been one of an "infinite" number. That's utterly baseless, because we only have ONE example of a Universe from which we can draw our data, and for all we know this could be the only possible formation a Universe could take. Do not force your presuppositions on to the Universe

Sure, I 'll stop thinking about life as the driving force for the existence of the universe (if that is giving you so much trouble). Now, This one example of a universe itself could not have existed (forget about live) unless these forces collectively worked in a remarkable precise fashion to force the world to existence. Sure, life added another layer of complexity but even without life, still, the precise fine tuning of these forces in action, is what created our world.

 

[NoorNoor]

In response to the part of your post I underlined, I have, but I thought you'd maybe be interested in those who specialize in BB cosmology in terms of what they're consensus is.

Secondly, there simply is no evidence for "intelligent design", nor is it even a scientific hypothesis since it lacks the criteria necessary to be considered as such.

BTW, you might tone down the condescension a bit as it's a bit offensive. My background is science (retired anthropologist), and I also taught theology for many years, so I've used "my knowledge and my judgement" on this matter.

Take care.

I apologize if what I said was offensive to you. I am sorry, that was not my intention. I was only stating my general opinion.
Regards

 

[metis]

I apologize if what I said was offensive to you. I am sorry, that was not my intention. I was only stating my general opinion.
Regards

No worries, and I do appreciate reading your opinions.

 

[viole]

I'll tell you why I disagree with you when you say that you writing this simple post was deduced from the physical state of the universe billions of years ago.

If let's say, we humans, were not autonomous and did not have free choice, and did not have the ability to reflect and think, then it would be safe to say that we are a direct product from the universe, and every action of ours is something we can determine if we understood how the universe was designed and how it functions, and we could probably end up predicting how the future will turn out.

Yes, but what I am asserting is not my personal opinion. It is just what I gather from the laws of physics. I really do not see how I can introduce any novelty in the physical state of the Universe without throwing away the very basic laws of physics as we know them today. The conservation of physical information is so important that it is used today as a first test of any new physical theory. True, it could be false (and someone like Hawking thought, before reconsidering, that information could indeed be lost when black holes are involved), but I am afraid that free will is more motivated by our self esteem and the need of justifying accountability (i.e. we are not blind machines following the laws of physics) than by the possibility of breaking those laws.

But I do not believe this is the case. I believe that we, as humans, aside from our physical bodies, we have a spiritual body, and this spiritual body, or essence, is not a product of this universe. This deeper existence of our being is what determines our desires, our actions, and our current states. While our bodies continue to obey the laws of the universe, our spiritual bodies do not. We may desire to eat healthy food, so when we eat healthy, our physical bodies will change in accordance with the natural laws for our bodies that when we eat healthy, we'll get sick less often and may end up living a longer life. If we choose to do drugs, then our bodies will fall into the pathway of destruction, as that is how the universe created our physical bodies, we cannot stand intoxication or poison.

I see. But what you are asserting here is that the spiritual can affect the physical. That the spiritual can introduce unexpected and not physically reducible changes of states on the physics of things. That if I decide to kick a ball, out of my (spiritual) free will, i cannot possibly reduce the new state of the ball to states prior to my decision. And that breaks the unitarity of physical laws as we know them.

So much for Gould's not overlapping magisteria .

We are not defined by our bodies, we are defined by something more. Now you may ask, where is the evidence for our spiritual bodies. The answer to everything, whether it is the soul, or anything else, always starts with God, or the creator of the universe. We cannot begin to understand anything regarding a spiritual body, nor a heaven, or anything else, if we do not first understand the source of all of these ideas and concepts, and that source is the ultimate idea of there being a creator of the universe.

I think you are justifying the evidence of X (spiritual bodies) by using Y (God), which shares the same amount of (lack of) evidence as X.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I am not making this claim but regardless, After the bing bang, the entire universe was precisely controlled by several invisible forces (that we call physical laws). These forces collectively worked in a very precise fashion to force the existence of the universe. the configuration after the beginning was not any random configuration but on the contrary, it was one specific configuration out of "infinite" number of other possible configurations. would the probability in this case be in favor of random chance or an intelligent design? If the chance is one to infinity, then mathematically, this chance would be a """zero chance""" (number/infinity =0). In another words, these configurations would mathematically have "0" chance to appear randomly.

Laws of physics describe the effects of invisible forces that we can only recognize through these (regulated) specific effects. We can observe only the effects, not the force itself. For thousands of years, people were not aware of an extremely obvious force "gravity" till finally Newton was able to realize its existence through its effects.

Dark energy, gravity, magnetism are examples of invisible forces that exist in our world. The specific behavior of the physical elements under the specific influence of these invisible forces make us believe with no doubt that these forces do exist.

Similarly, if we observe another influence (external) on these invisible forces itself that regulates its behavior, then it would be an evidence for the existence of another unknown force that controls/regulates all these invisible forces in our physical world, in a very similar fashion to the control exerted by the individual forces (physical law) over the physical elements. Simply a force of a higher level that controls/regulates the behavior of all these mysterious physical forces in our universe. Another force that can't be seen but yet can be recognized through its effects.

So are you not able to answer my question? Post #296?

 

[Valjean]

I am not making this claim but regardless, After the bing bang, the entire universe was precisely controlled by several invisible forces (that we call physical laws). These forces collectively worked in a very precise fashion to force the existence of the universe. the configuration after the beginning was not any random configuration but on the contrary, it was one specific configuration out of "infinite" number of other possible configurations. would the probability in this case be in favor of random chance or an intelligent design? If the chance is one to infinity, then mathematically, this chance would be a """zero chance""" (number/infinity =0). In another words, these configurations would mathematically have "0" chance to appear randomly.

Laws of physics describe the effects of invisible forces that we can only recognize through these (regulated) specific effects. We can observe only the effects, not the force itself. For thousands of years, people were not aware of an extremely obvious force "gravity" till finally Newton was able to realize its existence through its effects.

Dark energy, gravity, magnetism are examples of invisible forces that exist in our world. The specific behavior of the physical elements under the specific influence of these invisible forces make us believe with no doubt that these forces do exist.

Similarly, if we observe another influence (external) on these invisible forces itself that regulates its behavior, then it would be an evidence for the existence of another unknown force that controls/regulates all these invisible forces in our physical world, in a very similar fashion to the control exerted by the individual forces (physical law) over the physical elements. Simply a force of a higher level that controls/regulates the behavior of all these mysterious physical forces in our universe. Another force that can't be seen but yet can be recognized through its effects.

Now you've backed away from creationism completely.
I thought we were talking about a sentient, intentional being, consciously manipulating these 'physical laws'; consciously guiding the expression of Reality. You're describing nothing but blind, intentionless physics.
The OP is about creationism, which asserts a sentient, magical personage consciously manipulating Reality for some intended goal..

 

[OurCreed]

Yes, but what I am asserting is not my personal opinion. It is just what I gather from the laws of physics. I really do not see how I can introduce any novelty in the physical state of the Universe without throwing away the very basic laws of physics as we know them today. The conservation of physical information is so important that it is used today as a first test of any new physical theory. True, it could be false (and someone like Hawking thought, before reconsidering, that information could indeed be lost when black holes are involved), but I am afraid that free will is more motivated by our self esteem and the need of justifying accountability (i.e. we are not blind machines following the laws of physics) than by the possibility of breaking those laws.



I see. But what you are asserting here is that the spiritual can affect the physical. That the spiritual can introduce unexpected and not physically reducible changes of states on the physics of things. That if I decide to kick a ball, out of my (spiritual) free will, i cannot possibly reduce the new state of the ball to states prior to my decision. And that breaks the unitarity of physical laws as we know them.

So much for Gould's not overlapping magisteria .



I think you are justifying the evidence of X (spiritual bodies) by using Y (God), which shares the same amount of (lack of) evidence as X.

Ciao

- viole

I really do not see how I can introduce any novelty in the physical state of the Universe without throwing away the very basic laws of physics as we know them today.

Yes I know, but there is so much we do not know about the universe, and most likely, there are probably laws out there that we have not discovered or understood yet. We label black holes as breaking all laws of physics as we know it, but what is most likely happening is that the black holes are simply determined by another set of laws which we do not understand or have discovered yet. So there wouldn't be any laws which are broken, just greater laws which are being obeyed, per say.

I see. But what you are asserting here is that the spiritual can affect the physical. That the spiritual can introduce unexpected and not physically reducible changes of states on the physics of things. That if I decide to kick a ball, out of my (spiritual) free will, i cannot possibly reduce the new state of the ball to states prior to my decision. And that breaks the unitarity of physical laws as we know them.

Again, it comes down to our limited understanding of the physical laws. Out of all the laws we know about, we consider that, as you say, unified, but that cannot be if there are more laws out there that we don't know about. This means that it can technically and logically be possible, all of this, with a broader understanding of the laws that govern the universe.

Nothing can surpass the speed of light, this is a law, and it's based off the fact that the less mass something has, the greater its speed of travel. But when something reaches 0 mass (a photon for example), the speed of an object reaches its limit, and it cannot surpass it. We still don't know why that is the case, the universe was designed based off this basic principle. This is what we know, but let's say there was another law out there that changed what we know, a law which allowed objects to surpass the speed of 299,792,458 m/s. This law would first have to work in a way that doesn't completely nullify the currently known speed of light, and it would have to operate differently. This is just an example, I'm not saying there is a law out there that can negate the effects of the max travel distance of a photon, but that if there were other greater laws, then something like this can be possible.

I think you are justifying the evidence of X (spiritual bodies) by using Y (God), which shares the same amount of (lack of) evidence as X.

God, and similarly, spiritual bodies, is a philosophical topic, not a physical one. So the evidence for God and everything related with God, comes through philosophical thinking, rather than science. So there won't ever be empirical evidence for God, because God is a concept outside the universe as we know it, and completely free and independent from the laws that govern the universe.

 

[NoorNoor]

So are you not able to answer my question? Post #296?

see below

Source? And I mean a real pier-reviewed source, not pop-science from Nat-Geo

You are not really interested. If you are, then you would have found the info for yourself but the following are some references :. (I also added info about the Authors)

---Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American Edition edition.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

---Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

---Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Because you're claiming a universe with different physical laws can't support life, even though you have no example of a universe with different physical laws.

Again, neither life nor the universe itself would have existed without the fine tuned constants. This has nothing to do with some other imaginary universe that may or may not exist. the comparison is irrelevant.

How do you know the chance is very small? Have you calculated it? And with what referent? We don't know the chance at all. We just know the laws exist and that's it.

To calculate a chance, you will need to multiply the probability of the first constant by the probability of the second and so on. The cosmological constant alone is fine tuned to “1 in 10 to the power120 ”. The probability of all the constants to be collectively fine tuned at the same time will be extremely small to an unimaginable extent.

 

[NoorNoor]

Now you've backed away from creationism completely.

No, how did you come to this assumption? I was only trying to explain a concept.

I thought we were talking about a sentient, intentional being, consciously manipulating these 'physical laws'; consciously guiding the expression of Reality. You're describing nothing but blind, intentionless physics.
The OP is about creationism, which asserts a sentient, magical personage consciously manipulating Reality for some intended goal..

Let me put it in other words, the behavior of the physical elements in our world is definitely not random. Its behavior is governed/regulated by external physical forces. We can neither see these forces nor can understand its actual nature but we can only observe its effects on the physical elements. like the example of gravity or dark energy, we can observe its effects but how these forces actually control the physical elements? How it attracts or repels? What give it its specific power? We don’t know. Nonetheless, we believe (beyond doubt) that these mysterious forces of the universe do exist, through watching its influence. the belief of its existence is 100% scientific.

Similar to the fact that the physical elements behavior is not random, we also observed that the collective behavior/values of the physical forces itself is not random but appears to be regulated/controlled in an extreme accuracy. The collective orderly behavior of these forces implies an external influence of another force that controls its behavior. We neither understand the mysterious physical forces itself nor what would be the nature of this higher influence that regulates its behavior.

If the existence of these invisible (low level) physical forces is acceptable based on observations of its effects, (regardless of our inability to understand its actual nature), then similarly, the existence of a higher level force that regulates all physical forces to keep its orderly behavior, would be also acceptable based on its observed influence.

You may consider this influence as another invisible unexplained mystery to be added to the list. I would call this external influence, the origin of everything or the creator who precisely calibrated all these forces and brought it to existence.

If this influence is responsible for controlling/regulating everything in existence very accurately beyond imagination, then it would be an original extreme intelligence beyond any limits known to us. It would be the creator who is consciously manipulating reality for an intended goal. The fact that he is beyond human /science limits is not a logical basis to deny his existence. All physical forces in the universe are examples of mysteries that we do believe, without clear understanding of its actual nature. Same is the example of God, a mystery or power beyond our limits. We can observe his influence and through that influence, we recognize his existence but we can never understand his nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is actually nonsense. The atoms group to make up a single molecule. The molecules are bonded together through covalent bonding in a stable balance of attractive and repulsive forces. Yet, I am not saying this is simple but on the contrary, a complex example of how invisible forces remarkably control the physical elements, regardless of the small scale of a molecule.

You seem to have not understood a single thing I wrote. Do you or do you not understand why proposing a "probability calculation" for such a thing as life is inane?

Sure, I 'll stop thinking about life as the driving force for the existence of the universe (if that is giving you so much trouble).

It's not giving me any "trouble" - it's incredibly simplistic thinking. The problem is that it is fallacious.

Now, This one example of a universe itself could not have existed (forget about live) unless these forces collectively worked in a remarkable precise fashion to force the world to existence.

"If things weren't the way they were, they would be different". Statements such as this are meaningless.

Sure, life added another layer of complexity but even without life, still, the precise fine tuning of these forces in action, is what created our world.

I already explained why this logic is flawed. Did you not understand my explanation?

 

[Valjean]

Given an extant universe, the probability of some configuration of physical constants is 100%.
The probability of any particular configuration is tiny, but the probability of our own, salubrious configuration is no less improbable than any other possibility.

Every configuration is vanishingly improbable. It just so happens that this particular roll of the dice enabled the evolution of intelligent but statistically challenged creatures able to reflect on the improbability and draw incorrect conclusions.

 

[McBell]

Again, neither life nor the universe itself would have existed without the fine tuned constants.

again, this is nothing but a bold empty claim.

 

[Valjean]

No, how did you come to this assumption? I was only trying to explain a concept.



Let me put it in other words, the behavior of the physical elements in our world is definitely not random. Its behavior is governed/regulated by external physical forces. We can neither see these forces nor can understand its actual nature but we can only observe its effects on the physical elements. like the example of gravity or dark energy, we can observe its effects but how these forces actually control the physical elements? How it attracts or repels? What give it its specific power? We don’t know. Nonetheless, we believe (beyond doubt) that these mysterious forces of the universe do exist, through watching its influence. the belief of its existence is 100% scientific.

Similar to the fact that the physical elements behavior is not random, we also observed that the collective behavior/values of the physical forces itself is not random but appears to be regulated/controlled in an extreme accuracy. The collective orderly behavior of these forces implies an external influence of another force that controls its behavior. We neither understand the mysterious physical forces itself nor what would be the nature of this higher influence that regulates its behavior.

If the existence of these invisible (low level) physical forces is acceptable based on observations of its effects, (regardless of our inability to understand its actual nature), then similarly, the existence of a higher level force that regulates all physical forces to keep its orderly behavior, would be also acceptable based on its observed influence.

You may consider this influence as another invisible unexplained mystery to be added to the list. I would call this external influence, the origin of everything or the creator who precisely calibrated all these forces and brought it to existence.

If this influence is responsible for controlling/regulating everything in existence very accurately beyond imagination, then it would be an original extreme intelligence beyond any limits known to us. It would be the creator who is consciously manipulating reality for an intended goal. The fact that he is beyond human /science limits is not a logical basis to deny his existence. All physical forces in the universe are examples of mysteries that we do believe, without clear understanding of its actual nature. Same is the example of God, a mystery or power beyond our limits. We can observe his influence and through that influence, we recognize his existence but we can never understand his nature.

No-one is arguing about your assessment of the physics of our universe, Noor. Our only argument is with your conclusion that our compatibility with extant laws points to they're being intentionally set up, by some intangible entity, to produce life as we know it. That just doesn't follow.
You invert cause and effect.

 

[viole]

I really do not see how I can introduce any novelty in the physical state of the Universe without throwing away the very basic laws of physics as we know them today.

Yes I know, but there is so much we do not know about the universe, and most likely, there are probably laws out there that we have not discovered or understood yet. We label black holes as breaking all laws of physics as we know it, but what is most likely happening is that the black holes are simply determined by another set of laws which we do not understand or have discovered yet. So there wouldn't be any laws which are broken, just greater laws which are being obeyed, per say.

I see. But what you are asserting here is that the spiritual can affect the physical. That the spiritual can introduce unexpected and not physically reducible changes of states on the physics of things. That if I decide to kick a ball, out of my (spiritual) free will, i cannot possibly reduce the new state of the ball to states prior to my decision. And that breaks the unitarity of physical laws as we know them.

Again, it comes down to our limited understanding of the physical laws. Out of all the laws we know about, we consider that, as you say, unified, but that cannot be if there are more laws out there that we don't know about. This means that it can technically and logically be possible, all of this, with a broader understanding of the laws that govern the universe.

Nothing can surpass the speed of light, this is a law, and it's based off the fact that the less mass something has, the greater its speed of travel. But when something reaches 0 mass (a photon for example), the speed of an object reaches its limit, and it cannot surpass it. We still don't know why that is the case, the universe was designed based off this basic principle. This is what we know, but let's say there was another law out there that changed what we know, a law which allowed objects to surpass the speed of 299,792,458 m/s. This law would first have to work in a way that doesn't completely nullify the currently known speed of light, and it would have to operate differently. This is just an example, I'm not saying there is a law out there that can negate the effects of the max travel distance of a photon, but that if there were other greater laws, then something like this can be possible.

I think you are justifying the evidence of X (spiritual bodies) by using Y (God), which shares the same amount of (lack of) evidence as X.

God, and similarly, spiritual bodies, is a philosophical topic, not a physical one. So the evidence for God and everything related with God, comes through philosophical thinking, rather than science. So there won't ever be empirical evidence for God, because God is a concept outside the universe as we know it, and completely free and independent from the laws that govern the universe.

Thanks for the reply.

I cannot answer now, since I have to catch a flight and spend a few days in the States for business.

But stay tuned. I will reply as soon as I can.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

You seem to have not understood a single thing I wrote. Do you or do you not understand why proposing a "probability calculation" for such a thing as life is inane?

I did. Your example was wrong

It's not giving me any "trouble" - it's incredibly simplistic thinking. The problem is that it is fallacious

Why? Just think about the universe itself. Take life out.

If things weren't the way they were, they would be different". Statements such as this are meaningless

Wrong, meaningless hypothesis. if thing's weren't the way they were, they would not be existent.

i alreeady explained why this logic is flawed. Did you not understand my explanation

You didn't explain. You assumed.

 

[McBell]

Wrong, meaningless hypothesis. if thing's weren't the way they were, they would not be existent.

prove it

 

[Sapiens]

I did. Your example was wrong

I think he was right, can you falsify his statement? Do you any actual evidence to support yours?

Why? Just think about the universe itself. Take life out.

Then you have a universe with no life in it. So what? There's no life on our Sun.

Wrong, meaningless hypothesis. if thing's weren't the way they were, they would not be existent.

No, the meaning is rather simple, if things were different they'd no be the same. Depending on what was different, life might be different (Silicon vs. Carbon, Florine vs Oxygen?) or maybe a swirling mass of undifferentiated matter and energy, but it isn't. It is what it is and it is absurd to attempt to enter that into evidence since we really know nothing of the alternatives and we'd not be having this discussion were it otherwise.

You didn't explain. You assumed.

No, he explained, you presupposed.

 

[NoorNoor]

again, this is nothing but a bold empty claim.

We are not talking about a claim. We are talking about the calculated values of the fundamental physical constants which are collectively responsible for the existence of the universe. Without the fine calibration of these values, matter, astronomical structures in addition to life wouldn’t be possible. This is a consensus among physicists and cosmologists not a claim. Definitely, not my claim. Check Post #309 for more info.

 

[NoorNoor]

prove it

Existence of matter, formation of astronomical structures and life itself, directly depends on the calibration of the constants. Check Post #309 & 319